VOGONS


First post, by vacatedboat

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I previously posted about changing over to a 80mhz crystal from 40mhz one on a 386 m/b and it is now recognised. So i started benchmarking this system and this appeared in the chache check of dosbench

Im trying to rule out software or is it the cache chips themselves. I ran system info and the next pic appeared.

So the crystal works. But it doesnt look right.
This poor thing

So far i have tried my only other cpu (40dx) and it displays the same info. Although it says a 386sx but both my cpus are 386dx ones. Dont have replacement cache chips yet. It almost feels like a component on the board is damaged. No signs that i have gone over.

Attachments

Reply 1 of 8, by weedeewee

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

yep, that don't look right.
No clue, though looking at the photo in your previous thread... Did you fix the battery corrosion ?

Right to repair is fundamental. You own it, you're allowed to fix it.
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Do not ask Why !
https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Serial_port

Reply 2 of 8, by waterbeesje

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Ouch. That poor thing is rediculously slow. Have you tried to run the tests with cache disabled and perhaps even physically removed from the board?
I'd parity active or disabled?

For comparison:
I've got a Biostar board with DX40 soldered.
Cachechk: within cache: 37.5 ms/b; outside cache: 78.7 ms/b
Landmark shows 70MHz AT.
My 286-16 even shows up as 24MHz AT
My Asus 486SX with both L1 and L2 disabled shows 14MHz AT in Landmark and 88ms/b in Cachechk.

I'd look into the cache with these figures.

Stuck at 10MHz...

Reply 3 of 8, by vacatedboat

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
weedeewee wrote on 2022-12-17, 21:08:

yep, that don't look right.
No clue, though looking at the photo in your previous thread... Did you fix the battery corrosion ?

I removed the barrel battery and attached an external one. May look to see if there is a connection there to the cache.

Reply 4 of 8, by vacatedboat

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
waterbeesje wrote on 2022-12-17, 21:24:
Ouch. That poor thing is rediculously slow. Have you tried to run the tests with cache disabled and perhaps even physically remo […]
Show full quote

Ouch. That poor thing is rediculously slow. Have you tried to run the tests with cache disabled and perhaps even physically removed from the board?
I'd parity active or disabled?

For comparison:
I've got a Biostar board with DX40 soldered.
Cachechk: within cache: 37.5 ms/b; outside cache: 78.7 ms/b
Landmark shows 70MHz AT.
My 286-16 even shows up as 24MHz AT
My Asus 486SX with both L1 and L2 disabled shows 14MHz AT in Landmark and 88ms/b in Cachechk.

I'd look into the cache with these figures.

So far disabled cache in bios, then physically remove and finally put back the original 40mhz crystal. Landmark shows the same performance or worse for the 40mhz crystals case and cache check is unchanged.
Thanks

Reply 5 of 8, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The cache is already disabled. Turbo is ON, On actually means OFF means slow. Turbo in old computers was often controlled by keyboard controller, keyboard controller is right next to battery, leaked battery can damage keyboard controller pins, including one responsible for turbo.

Open Source AT&T Globalyst/NCR/FIC 486-GAC-2 proprietary Cache Module reproduction

Reply 6 of 8, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

If this the same board you posted about here: Cystal clock 40mhz 386 and similar to https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/copam-c3404 ???
then the turbo switch header JP4 may need be jumpered if you already did not. Some boards are reverse, where jumpered is non turbo....but am fairly sure you need to jump it.
If it were me would remove the Math-Co until I got the board running like it should, specially since Landmark says the FPU is running at 1Mhz ....but thats just me 😀

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. Stuff: https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 8 of 8, by debs3759

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It's possible that the chipset can't handle the higher frequency, but I'd expect different problems if that were the case.

See my graphics card database at www.gpuzoo.com
Constantly being worked on. Feel free to message me with any corrections or details of cards you would like me to research and add.